Fodor's may use your email address to send you relevant information on site updates, account changes, and offers. For more information about your privacy and protection, please review our full Privacy Policy.

Last month, we saw locks on random pieces of chain link fencing along the cliff walk in Newport, RI, and watched a couple placing one on a pedestrian bridge in Wellfleet, MA. It's a global epidemic of stupid and ugly and it can't end soon enough for me.

I often wonder who starts these stupid trends, and how they spread? This particular one has been reported in major publications, for example. The only benefit is to those vendors selling the locks near the Seine, and I'm sure they don't have international PR agents to have started it. I wonder if it was just some dumb travel writer/publication and it got picked up. I admit sometimes I read stuff in major travel magazines or newpaper travel sections that isn't very astute advice or by people who don't even know what they are talking about that much.

But it has spread to many other cities, also, it is just the craziest thing (like NYC, Rome, FLorence, many others). It started around 10-15 years ago.

was a bit shocked recently in Cologne when I saw that they sell these padlocks at the tourist office.>>

yeah, I read there was some German city who was promoting it out of stupidity (tourism folks). Deutschebahn wasn't to ban it and cut them off as they apparently manage the bridge, but had to relent out of "public opposition." what public, I don't know as it's only the tourists who would object except for vendors selling locks. That's the only place where I read some official entity was actually promoting it to attract tourists.http://www.dw.de/cologne-gets-a-lock-on-love/a-4008316

It only took them 6 years to realize the kudzu on bridges are ugly and not a symbol of love. Love doesn't need keys or chastity belts. I wonder if all those keys are a danger to the fish and the balance of the river bed.

Selfie sticks are cumbersome to use and make one look ridiculous, so it seems to me that they will fade from view faster than locks. In the meantime, let people put up the stupid locks and allocate funds to take them down monthly, or weekly, or whatever. The futility of the gesture will sink in eventually.

"A couple of tourists from Washington DC turned up unaware of the padlock ban.

"We came with the idea of putting a lock but we found out it's closed and illegal now - so we are just going to put it here at the very end of the bridge so no one can see," Cathy Hominage told Reuters TV."

Where does that statistic come from?? And why do you assume all those additional photos are selfies? I take a LOT more photos than I used to, but none of them are selfies. Does that make me a better person? Or at least a less obtrusive one?

For the sake of argument, I would note that people are not merely narcissistic; we are a very social species as well. And for many these days, the selfies are taken in order to be posted on social media and thereby shared with friends.

Heck, If I was in charge (LOL) in Paris, I would have suggested a different option. I would have sold by bid the rights to be the exclusive vendor of locks to a company, then made the company come up with a cheap, light, and plastic lock with no key to throw into the river. The company would then also be required to remove panels that were full and remove the locks and replace it.

You get the best of both worlds, people get to symbolize their love with permanence - kind of like getting married and wearing a wedding ring - and the hyper sensitive environmentalists and traditionalists aren't offended by actions of others.

Uh, do you consider "going steady" as permanence? I hardly think getting the class ring I wrapped with yarn and then coated with nail polish in high school was worth the defacing of a building. After all, three weeks later and he was so gone.

"hyper sensitive environmentalists"

Hmm, so if I attach plastic locks over every protruding object outside, including on your car door handles, you are just dandy with that? Perhaps you think it would be fine just to toss the waste into your nearest river.

Or just onto your lawn.

If so, just post your address and I'm sure there are a bunch of us who can make that happen.

That was my only point, ImDone, that the pictures people take of things other than themselves demonstrate no greater appreciation of the world. I have seen people walk up to Tourist Attraction A--a painting, a statue, a building, you fill in the blank--snap a picture of it, turn on their heel and walk away. I suppose one shouldn't judge: maybe that person will contemplate the photo taken for countless productive hours at home. But I suspect it's more along the lines of proof you were there and nothing more, the point of which baffles me.

That cite claims that over 1 million selfies are taken daily. That means that there are approximately 365 million a year. A tad more in a leap year and countries with happy hour.

They also estimate there have been approximately 3.8 trillion photos taken in history of photography in approximately 170 years.

An earlier cite claims that 10% of all photographs that were ever taken were taken in 2012. So 10% of 3.8 trillion is 3.8 billion and 10% of 3.8 billion is approximately the number of selfies taken each year, give or take a Kodak moment or two.

So that seems like a hell of lot of narcissism. It is the cause and effect that is subject to debate. While, of course, there has always been narcissism, I am not sure it has ever been measured or could have been measured. So was there always this amount of self-indulgence or does modern technology encourage it?

Any professional psychologists, sociologists, or students of the human condition who care to speculate?

Wow - what a pack of 'back in my day' whiners. Too bad Grandma sold the box brownie - maybe that would be more suitable for you all?

What is it about people getting in their own photos that irks you so much? How is using a device (and a 'selfie stick' is just that) any different than handing your phone to someone to take it for you? I think it's great that we don't have to bother other people, explain how your phone works and then feel like you're imposing on their time so stand for one or two shots and then profusely thank them, all the while noting that the photos they took are no good/blurry/have cut out what you really wanted in the shot?

A selfie stick device circumvents all of that. Would *love* to know how that makes one 'narcissistic'?

You don't think that buying, and traveling with, a gizmo whose sole purpose is to take better pictures of yourself is narcissistic? You need a dictionary.

Selfie sticks are also intrusive (messing up the view for people who just want to look at whatever is being photographed) and potentially dangerous. But the basic problem is this peculiar urge to put yourself in every shot. It does not improve the shot, and how many pictures of themselves can one person need?

I think that selfies and the stick that goes with it, shows a unnatural devotion to photos of oneself and not what you are visiting. It is instructive as to the what is important to someone. And to purchase and carry a stick devoted to one's own image is to add a modern verse to Greek mythology.

As I wrote above, turn the camera and phone around, the world is much more interesting than you. It is like talking, the less talking you do, the more you learn from others.

Whining is a concern about oneself with a lack of self-awareness.

Here are a couple of articles that might dissuade you from justification of the activity.

Selfie sticks are annoying, but they are ubiquitous with Chinese tourists in Asia. You need to just deal with the people who are compelled to take photos of themselves with everything and move on. They are not going away.

IMD, what I was getting at is that you begin by citing the number of selfies taken annually, then slide into how many *photos* have been taken throughout history and then in the last few years. They are not the same thing.

I take a lot more photos than I used to, because digital media mean I can snap lots of backups; back in the day, it was one and done. I don;t happen to take selfies, though. Not my thing.

So I think that--unless I'm misreading your statistics--of the growing number of photos being taken, only a percentage are selfies.

I also doubt that human nature is changing. I think we have always been narcissists, and that selfies provide a new(ish) expression of that.

A century ago, people weren't taking selfies, but I bet they weren't all contemplating truth and beauty, either. Unfortunately, today we are confronted with ocular proof of humanity's baseness!

In the past people would take family portraits or pictures of themselves next to a monument, but now people take pictures of themselves to commemorate nothing in particular.

Certain inventions and modern conveniences do change behavior. Just to name two, cars changed where and how we lived. Mass produced books increased knowledge. Supposedly the average person who lived in the 11th cent knew as much as the daily edition of the NY Times.

When we were kids we thought legislation could not change behavior. And that in many ways was not true see smoking, drinking, and civil rights.

So behavior can be modified by many means including public and peer pressure.

<but now people take pictures of themselves to commemorate nothing in particular. >
I'm sure they wouldn't agree with that assessment!

I think behavior changes, but human nature doesn't. Or, put another way, our ancestors would have loved iPhones and selfie sticks as much as we (unfortunately) do. They drew on cave walls and painted the paintings and erected the monuments alongside which kids today take their selfies.

<<a gizmo whose sole purpose is to take better pictures of yourself is narcissistic? You need a dictionary.>>

Wow how rude are you?

I don't need a dictionary - you need an instruction book. The device also enables closer photographs of places out of reach as well as unusual angles. Would you place your camera/phone on the ground to take a photo of the oculus of the Pantheon? With a selfie stick you can lower the phone/camera much further than your arms and get that great shot. You can also use it over fences and unreachable places. They're not - as you describe - 'for the *sole purpose* of better pictures of yourself. They have added a whole dimension to photography and realistically - are no different to a tripod. They are a portable tripod. Still offended? Am sure some places still sell film and Kodak instamatics.

They drew on cave walls and painted the paintings and erected the monuments alongside which kids today take their selfies.
__________

Cave drawings are most interesting. Most captured the world around them, although there are some hand prints and finger outlines. Many cave drawings have a particular perspective that is extraordinarily accurate considering their era. There techniques were sophisticated, including spitting pigments onto the wall to using moss pads to apply the colors. They took local minerals and materials to create the pigments and, of course, made these paintings with the limited use of weak fire light.

I have been very fortunate to see the original Altamira before it was closed to the public and have been enthralled with them ever since. In my mind the intent of cave drawings is the very opposite of selfies. One is artistic filled with the awareness of their surrounding through a monumental effort to create pigments and techniques in any attempt to record their world and possibly communicate with others. Selfies, on the other hand, is a vainglorious abuse of modern technology and other people's sensibilities.

Sorry, I omitted something. There are some very elemental drawings of people and some that represent sex and sexual organs, but the vast majority of the drawings, deal with other aspects of daily life.

That is your projection. Were you there? How do you know? Imposing lofty interpretations of primitive art is a bit of a stretch. How do we know the artists were not painting themselves and their amazing success at the bison hunt while those around them in the cave rolled their eyes and said 'there he goes again, blowing his own horn - narcissist!'?

<<Selfies, on the other hand, is a vainglorious abuse of modern technology and other people's sensibilities.>>

So you wrote the rules on how one should use technology and are the expert on other people's 'sensibilities'? I would say people with views like yours are of a certain generation who can't cope with technology and whose catch phrase is surely 'back in my day'.

I agree with you, MmePerdu, but to avid users of social media, selfies are not boring. They are for sharing with their friends, or "friends", or followers.

IMD, <"A century ago, people weren't taking selfies, but I bet they weren't all contemplating truth and beauty, either">
You call this an "inaccurate" statement, but what does that even mean? You believe everyone was thinking higher thoughts in that vague period I called " a century ago"? Or you're saying they were, in fact, taking selfies?Please explain.

If you want to take the word "all" literally, of course not, but truth and beauty have been the source of thought, art, writing, philosophy, literature, and discussion for thousands of years, not hundreds.

I took "all" to be hyperbole not a literal interpretation, otherwise "all" would end almost all discussions.
________________
Selfies are extremely boring. The are trying to make more of the mundane than exists. They stifle the imagination with a sameness that creates numbness. How many silly faces do you think are funny? How many pictures of the same face evoke any emotion but ennui?

If you want to share them with friends and family do so, but do think the other 2,098 friends will share the same enthusiasm.

I know you're right, NewbE, and I know it isn't even necessarily a generational issue as I tried to be interested in all the sharing of my relatives and peers but felt compelled before long to disconnect, finding it excruciating. There must be creative people using social media in interesting ways but I couldn't see it in the ocean of, well, the other. And didn't have the stamina to continue looking.

I take a few pictures of places, buildings, works of art and all the beauty that surrounds us.
I take lots of pictures of my kids and my grandchild
But I don't feel the need to live life's most beautiful moments through the lens of my phones camera for social media.
It seems as though people have forgotten how to live life in the moment.It is sad.

About those awful selfie sticks.
A very rude woman sitting in front of my family at my grand daughters first dance recital kept poking that stick up in our way.
Apparently you can't use them inside because security removed her

Thank goodness my family did not HAVE to deal with that stick while our 3 year old grand baby did a little jazz
dance

There are a lot of them so to see them you will have to commit a lot of time, so please don't go to my website until you have at least an hour. There are none from Paris, but I am going there in August (first time in 14 years as I've been busy visiting other places). I'll be visiting a friend in Paris before doing a home exchange on the Costa Brava.

If you hit me with the selfie stick or get in my way, I will get annoyed, but not otherwise.

There are obviously two issues here: rude people who inconvenience others and deface beautiful areas and therefore must be stopped; and arrogant, mindless, etc. people whom one is free to judge but who are doing no harm.

I stand by my belief that both categories pf person have always existed, and probably in about the same proportion to the general population.

"...both categories pf person have always existed, and probably in about the same proportion to the general population."

A very good point. And goes along with my belief that politics is a good way to keep an eye on crooks that we may otherwise not know are among us. And then the selfie-takers, less dangerous for the most part, but it's always good to know where they are.

NewbE, you have made an excellent point that lack of judgment is not necessarily evil incarnate. And that can go both ways!

I have questioned my skirting the "judge not lest you be judged" rule lately.

I was stunned to be stopped by two young adults in the middle of a prayer chapel inside Toledo Cathedral to take their picture.

I'm not Catholic, but I'm certainly "old school"--this just isn't a selfie moment in my book. I told them I just could not do it. I would be more than happy to take their pictures outside; I just could not do it inside.

Later on, I questioned my judgment in my tone of voice. These two kids were
--not shouting on their cell phones in the middle of the church
--not using flash
--not blocking traffic.

Were they wrong?

No.

Maybe they were a tad lacking on a concept of appropriates IN MY VIEWPOINT, but overall, they were not disrespectful of the site.

I was the mean grumpy granny. No, I was not harsh to them; I still could have extended a bit more kindness.

Mea culpa--I'm trying my best to be remorseful, but I still do not know if I'd be willing to take the picture.

When you say "prayer chapel" do you mean a chapel specifically set aside for private prayer? If so, if it has a sign saying that, it is definitely inappropriate to take photos there. Just as it would be inappropriate to take photos during a service.

It is important to know that in France, all religious buldings built before 1905 are property of the state, and the state allows photos to be taken in them. Churches, temples, mosques, etc. built after 1905 belong to the congregations that built them, and they can make the rules about photos or not. That's why you can take pictures in Notre Dame but not in the Sacré Coeur.

FWIW, I always feel funny touring a church when there are people there trying to pray, or during a service.

AlessandraZoe, I'm not sure you have anything to be remorseful about! I am often seized by an urge to scold people for acting like jerks in public--tapping on the glass at the zoo and encouraging their kids to do the same, or walking without looking where they're going, or talking too loudly, I could go on and on--and fully expect that one day my inhibitions, few as they are, will fall away completely and I will be That Old Lady.

Your example is about what YOU are comfortable doing, and I think you were fully within the bounds of civilized behavior to decline to take the photo

AlessandraZoe, it is one thing to take a picture in a church but not a picture of yourself in said church. Sort of tacky imo. I don't use flash and try to be discreet. I always light a candle and donate some change.
I did tweet to Chase credit card service and told them their ad encouraging people to put love locks on bridges was not such a good thing. They said they would notify marketing. Oh well, tried at least.

Belinda, my remorse comes in with my tone of voice after my first refusal to take the photo. My first refusal was not grumpy granny one bit; instead it was a heartfelt "I can't do that."

And by rights, I DO have a right of refusal. What followed, though, was grumpy granny. Even in my offering to take their picture elsewhere, my tone of voice was just not good.

I was not abusive. I just was not nice.

Yes, I still feel their request was inappropriate. But in the context of the place and time, there were tour groups coming through with ZERO respect for their surroundings. These two kids were not horrible, and if my tone of voice after that first blurt did not help them understand why I could not do that, then I failed to help THEM.

Someone once wrote that it's not the acts of great courage that count but the little kindnesses ( I thought it was Wallace Stegner but I can't find it). No matter what, you get my drift.

I remember once as a waitress 40 years ago getting an order totally wrong for UNbuttered toast. I was a kid. The guy at the counter, who probably had a heart condition, started to react when he got his order. And he looked at me and totally wiped out his ire.

OMG, he even tipped me.

Looking back, I would willing serve that guy unbuttered toast every day of his life because he was so patient in an impatient world.

I was wondering the same thing. I saw some at my grocery store recently and there's a wire & connector at the attaching end which, presumably, is trigged at the bottom where they're held.

Has anyone else noticed, in the pictures I've seen of them lately, they seem to be getting longer. I suspect there could be damage with inept self-picture-takers swinging them around with that weighted end.